How about apology as foreign policy?

In response, a White House spokesperson denied any plans to apologize. "I have heard some suggestions of an apology," said then secretary of state Colin Powell. "But we have nothing to apologize for. We had an emergency."

Searching for a solution, Jiang devised a high-road analogy: "I have visited many countries and seen that it is normal for people to ask forgiveness or say 'excuse me' when they collide in the street," he said. "But the American planes come to the border of our country and do not ask forgiveness. Is this behavior acceptable?"

In a well-choreographed diplomatic dance, US officials were permitted to see the plane's crew, and the next day, in a parallel show of goodwill, Powell expressed "regret" for the loss of Wang Wei, the missing pilot. Then president George W. Bush expressed his own "regret", but stopped short of apologizing. "Our prayers," he said, "go out to the pilot and his family".

The crisis ended when diplomats worked semantic magic so that Washington's double use of the word "sorry" in its official letter offered sufficient apology for the accident. In addition to expressing "sincere regret" over the missing pilot, the letter also said that the US was "very sorry" for entering China's air space without permission and admitted that the landing in Hainan did not have verbal clearance.

The final wording of the letter was negotiated entirely in English, an unusual procedure. "It allowed a little more wiggle room," mused one diplomat.

The lack of apology can prolong, even exacerbate, ill feelings. For years, Japan would not offer to China a full and unconditional apology for its vast atrocities committed during the War of Resistance against Japanese Agrression. Just before Jiang's visit to Japan in 1998, Japan had apologized overtly to South Korea, expressing "remorseful repentance".

But when China requested the same strength of apology, Japan refused, claiming a difference between its actions against South Korea, which had been a Japanese colony for 35 years (1910-1945), and against China, where Japan had not been colonizers but merely "occupiers", and then only for eight years (1937-1945).

To the Chinese, who had lost upwards of 20 million people during that horrific period, the distinction was vulgar and galling. The wording of Japan's apology would continue to color Sino-Japanese relations.

In today's world, with 24-hour news cycles and the always-on Internet clustering like-minded beliefs and allowing little time for reflection, resentment and anger can self-generate with astonishing speed. That's why apologies can be powerful antidotes to the poison of reciprocating invective and escalating abuse, which are often caricatured and exaggerated by each side in a vicious cycle that can ossify into lasting antagonisms. Apologies, counter-intuitively, can symbolize strength.

Note, however, that apologies only work to ameliorate accidents or mitigate mistakes, or when errors of the past can be redressed soberly. Conversely, when there is malevolent intent, apologies are counterproductive, and it takes wise leaders, especially in the face of domestic nationalism, to discern the difference.

Apologies, like aircraft carriers, can become powerful weapons in a country's arsenal. But apologies are for countries that are confident and leaders who are strong.

And if you don't agree, well, I apologize.

The author is an international corporate strategist and investment banker. He is the author of The Man Who Changed China: The Life and Legacy of Jiang Zemin and How China's Leaders Think (featuring China's new leaders). He is a regular commentator on China (BBC, Bloomberg, CCTV, CNBC, Euronews).

(China Daily 07/20/2012 page9)

Previous Page 1 2 Next Page

Previous Page 1 2 Next Page